Troubleshooting & additional application logging at 5.0

We have recently upgraded to Maps for Office 5.0 (from 4.1) and our initial testing has hit some issues with sharing layers and/or maps. Are there any mechanisms to log further information from the product or general troubleshooting guidelines?

The current behaviour is that the layer/map hits 20% when sharing before an error of "the map could not be shared {"log":"false"}" appears. The underlying hosting server & datastore FINE logs indicate no issues and even suggest that the publishing was a success. When you attempt to access the hosted feature layer, the table has no records or fields.

As the same dataset can be added to Portal via the 2D map, my content or using 4.1 without any issues, we are currently pointing the finger at M4O 5.0.

Thank you Angus for the information. I am sorry to hear you are experiencing difficulties sharing layers/maps. Let me attempt to answer your question below:

Are there any mechanisms to log further information from the product or general troubleshooting guidelines?

Yes, you may use Fiddler to capture or decrypt HTTPS traffic. You may find the download here.

Also, can you upload a screen capture here of the error message you are receiving and perhaps the data set being used? If not, that is completely ok too. I can use in-house data to mock up your workflow. If by chance, you capture the fiddler log you may also upload that file here!

Unfortunately using Fiddler will not be possible. However, I can confirm that the server & portal logs align closely between a 4.2 and 5.0 session of M4O. There are no WARN messages and it almost appears as if the entire publishing/sharing process was a success as a hosted feature layer is created - just empty. Also, as an FYI, the blank hosted feature layer has delete protection turned on by default which I find odd.

In terms of dataset, I am just testing with a simple 2 row table, so it is not data specific. E.g. ID,Lat,Long: 1,1,1.

Is there no other application logging avenues other than using network inspectors?